Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Slovak Republic 15 December 2005 Regional Court in Bratislava (Machinery technologies case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/051215k1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20051215 (15 December 2005)

JURISDICTION: Slovak Republic

TRIBUNAL: Regional Court in Bratislava

JUDGE(S): JU Dr. Helena Kosorinova

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 34 Cb/18/2002

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Belgium (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Czech Republic (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Machinery technologies


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes.

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 53 ; 78

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Slovak): Click here for Slovak text of case

Translation (English): Text presented below

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents

Case text (English translation) [second draft]

Queen Mary Case Translation Programme

Regional Court in Bratislava

15 December 2005 [34 Cb/18/2002]

Translation [*] by Juraj Kotrusz [**]

JUDGMENT
IN THE NAME OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

The Regional Court in Bratislava, deciding by a single judge JUDr. Helena Kosorinova, in case of Plaintiff D.E.S. [Seller], with its registered office in O.T./zone A.L - ___. W, Belgium, represented by JUDr. S.S. CSc., attorney, versus Defendant D. - M., S.r.o. [Buyer], with its registered office in B., ___, [Slovak Republic], Identification number: X, represented by attorney JUDr. J.V., regarding payment of 24,548.30 Euro [EUR] and appurtenances

h a s   d e c i d e d   a s   f o l l o w s:

The [Buyer] is obliged to pay to the [Seller] the sum of 24,548.30 EUR and interest of 0.05% daily:

On the sum of 4,942.96 EUR for the period from 3 October 1998 until 18 March 1999;
On the sum of 4,756.10 EUR for the period from 28 September 1998 until 18 March 1999
On the sum of 2,296.02 EUR for the period from 19 March 1999 until payment;
On the sum of 22,252.30 EUR for the period from 25 January 1999 until payment.

The court does not grant the [Seller] right to reimbursement of costs of the proceedings.

REASONING

The [Seller] claimed in the proceedings by its action filed with the court on 8 April 2002 its right to payment of 990,276.- Belgian francs [Bf] as a purchase price for goods - machine technologies, invoiced by invoice no. 28220 for 216,883.-Bf due on 2 October 1998, invoice no. 28747 for 191,860.-Bf due on 27 October 1998, invoice no. 31631 for 897,656.-Bf due on 24 January 1999. The [Buyer] ordered the goods from the [Seller] by purchase orders no. 1998-06-03, 1998-06-26, and D 051198.

The [Seller] changed its asserted claim by its motion of 22 December 2003 by re-counting it to EUR. The court upheld this motion by its resolution rec. no. 34 Cb 18/02 of 30 January 2004, coming into force on 16 February 2004.

The [Buyer] did not react to the action. The parties to the dispute expressed their will to settle the dispute by a mutual agreement. The court therefore adjourned the proceedings to provide a prescribed period of time for concluding such settlement. The court proceedings were held on 15 December 2005 in absence of the [Buyer] in accordance with sec. 101 part 2 of the Slovak Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). The court dismissed further motions for adjournment sent by the [Buyer] reasoned by its pending will to settle the dispute by a mutual agreement, as being unjustified.

The court gathered evidence by interrogation of the [Seller] and reading submitted documents and thereby concluded that the [Seller]'s action is justified in its entirety.

There was no dispute between the parties about the fact that upon the [Buyer]'s written purchase orders, the [Seller] delivered the machinery technologies to the [Buyer], as they were specified in invoices no. 28220, 28747 and 31631 drawn by the [Seller], which also specify the total purchase price in amount of 1,306,399.-Bf. Furthermore, there was no doubt about the fact that the [Buyer] partially paid the purchase price in three instalments, on 31 August 1997 amounting to 17,485.-Bf, on 19 March 1999 amounting to 179,138.-Bf, on 19 March 1999 amounting to 128,600.-Bf and that thereby the [Buyer] partially paid the purchase price in sum of 316,123.-Bf. The [Buyer] reacted to calls for payment of the balance sent by the [Seller] claiming its bad financial situation, economic crisis, high inflation, high interest rate for credits in Slovakia and failure of company V. to buy the goods from the [Buyer], and thus could not afford to pay the entire purchase price at once. The [Buyer] presented its intention to initially pay 100,000.-Bf and subsequently the residual 1,400,000.-Bf in smaller amounts.

The court found out by examination of the evidence that the relationship between the [Seller] and the [Buyer] shall be governed by provisions of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ratified in Vienna on 11 April 1990, published in Collection of Acts as no. 160/1991 Coll.

The court deemed to be proved that the contract of sale had been concluded between the parties at the moment of acceptance of the purchase orders and dispatching of the goods, with reference to the purchase orders and subsequent deliveries of the machinery technologies, as they are specified in the invoices drawn by the [Seller].

   -    Under article 53 of the Convention, the buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and this Convention.
 
   -    Under article 78 of the Convention, if a party fails to pay the price or any other sum that is in arrears, the other party is entitled to interest on it, without prejudice to any claim for damages recoverable under article 74.

The [Buyer] did not prove in any way that it paid the rest of the invoiced purchase price, besides the amount mutually accepted as being paid, as is specified above. The [Buyer] did not object to the asserted claim. Its only defense was a declaration of will to settle the dispute by a mutual agreement, which was not accepted by the [Seller].

The court therefore bound the [Buyer] to pay the residual part of the purchase price, as it was asserted by the [Seller] in its action with interest of 0.05% daily (18.25% annually), which interest rate is not exceeding usual interest rates provided by local banks at the time of concluding of the contract. Right to interest was granted from the first day of default until payment, as it was claimed in the action.

The court decided about the reimbursement of the costs of judicial proceedings under sec. 152 part 1 CPC and did not grant reimbursement of the costs to the [Seller], since the right to reimbursement was not asserted by the [Seller].

Instruction: An appeal against this judgment must be filed via the Regional Court in Bratislava within fifteen days of its receipt.

Regional Court in Bratislava, 15 December 2005

JUDr. Helena Kosorinova, Judge


FOOTNOTES

* All translations should be verified by cross-checking against the original text. For purposes of this translation, Plaintiff of the Kingdom of Belgium is referred to as [Seller] and Defendant of the Slovak Republic is referred to as [Buyer]. Amounts in the currency of the Belgium (Belgian francs) are indicated as [Bf]; amounts in currency of the European Union (EURO) are indicated as [EUR].

** Juraj Kotrusz is a Slovak lawyer studied law at the University of Trnava, Slovakia and at the Hague Academy of International Law.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 3, 2008
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography